Re: [PATCH] fasync: Use tabs instead of spaces in code indent

[Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 2021/11/10 6:58 pm, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-11-10 at 14:29 +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
>> When I investigated about fasync_list in SMC network subsystem,
>> I happened to find that here uses spaces instead of tabs in code
>> indent and fix this by the way.
>>
>> Fixes: f7347ce4ee7c ("fasync: re-organize fasync entry insertion to
>> allow it under a spinlock")
>> Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Tony Lu <tonylu@linux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/fcntl.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fcntl.c b/fs/fcntl.c
>> index 9c6c6a3..36ba188 100644
>> --- a/fs/fcntl.c
>> +++ b/fs/fcntl.c
>> @@ -927,7 +927,7 @@ void fasync_free(struct fasync_struct *new)
>>    */
>>   struct fasync_struct *fasync_insert_entry(int fd, struct file *filp, struct fasync_struct **fapp, struct fasync_struct *new)
>>   {
>> -        struct fasync_struct *fa, **fp;
>> +	struct fasync_struct *fa, **fp;
>>   
>>   	spin_lock(&filp->f_lock);
>>   	spin_lock(&fasync_lock);
> 
> Hi Wen,
> 
> I usually don't take patches that just fix whitespace like this. The
> reason is that these sorts of patches tend to make backporting difficult
> as they introduce merge conflicts for no good reason.
> 
> When you're making substantial changes in an area, then please do go
> ahead and fix up whitespace in the same area, but patches that just fix
> up whitespace are more trouble than they are worth.
> 
> Sorry,
> 

Thank you for the reminding. I didn't realize my unintentional action 
would bring trouble to the backport. I will keep this in mind.

Thanks,
Wen Gu